Today's Industrial Production "increase" of 0.2% is another example of the Federal Reserve manipulating statistics to make currently published figures appear "good" or "improved." From the Fed's own publication of Industrial Production figures taken from 10/30/06, the "Gross Value of Final Products and Nonindustrial Supplies" has been downwardly revised for every single time period shown. Every quarterly report has been revised downward. August and September's numbers have been downwardly revised. Even the total for 2005 has been downwardly revised by $36 billion, from the previously reported $2.990 trillion down to $2.954 trillion. (This would subtract approximately 0.1% from 2005's reported GDP.)

Even using only the current numbers, there has been a $15 billion net decline in Industrial Production since August. However, using the previously published number for August of $3.1301 trillion, there has been a decline of $64.4 billion to November's $3.0657 trillion. This is a decline in the annual rate of over 2% in 3 months.

(Below is a modified copy of both the Federal Reserves report from 12/15/06 on Industrial Production on the top with a copy of the Fed's report from 10-30-06 on the bottom. The changed numbers are underlined in red.)

Are these signs of an economy that is "strong, and getting stronger"? At best, much of this so-called "growth" has been a result of statistical manipulation, especially through the downward revision of previously published numbers.

If anybody cares about America and the tax incentives they get, they would be in their best interests, and the world's, to curb offshoring for a little while. They are ultimately hurting themselves as well as everybody else.

OTOH, if it's inevitable, there's nothing we can do so why not enjoy each day as it happens? Fighting against an empty cause is ludicrous.

If anybody cares about America and the tax incentives they get, they would be in their best interests, and the world's, to curb offshoring for a little while. They are ultimately hurting themselves as well as everybody else

I went into Wally's today to pick up my drugs. It was DEAD. People were buying food and the usual collection of junk but none of the stuff you'd expect folks to buy for presents was in the carts. They weren't even buying wrapping paper.

It'll be interesting to see how they spin the numbers to reflect the luxury market, which I imagine is doing just fine, and suppress the lower and middle income markets.

Actually, the numbers for November Retail Sales are less than the original numbers posted for August by about $1 billion. I'll post a graph representation of that later. Basically, the net change in monthly Retail Sales has been negative over the last 3 months. You'd think the opposite would be the case due to Christmas shopping, but it's not.

I was off a little on my previous statement about Retail Sales. August "adjusted" Retail Sales were initially reported at $368 billion, roughly the same as November's sales. Below is a composite copy of 3 different Retail Sales reports from the Census Bureau. The top is from December of 2006, the middle is from November 2006, and the bottom is from September 2006. The November and August total "adjusted" Retail Sales numbers are underlined in red.

Again, the net change in Retail Sales since August ia approximately 0. It's hard for an economy to be "growing" when sale of goods is not growing.

Eventually all of the fake numbers are going to catch up with the Bush-thugs.

In today's Yahoo News in an article by Martin Crutsinger, "Report: Federal deficit would be higher", the Treasury Dept. released a report stating that the deficit for 2006 would be $449.5 billion, not $247 billion as reported, if the accrual method of accounting had been used.

It appears there's not any statistic or fact this administration won't alter to make itself look good.

I've long suspected this, that the supposedly rosy economic numbers that the Fed likes to post are bogus. GDP has long been inflated, job numbers artificially increased (the US counts as "unemployed" only those receiving unemployment insurance-- something no other country does) and the deficit numbers artificially reduced with false accounting.

I suspect that both parties may do this to an extent, but nobody can approach the sheer scale and cynicism of the Bush Administration in this practice.

I agree with you about the GDP inflation. All that's necessary to overstate it is to understate the BEA's inflation measure-- the GDP deflator. For the 3rd quarter it was 1.8%, where it had been over 3% for the previous quarters. Also, there was considerable doubt about the auto production contribution, which accounted for almost 1/2 the 3rd quarter GDP increase.

The unemployment numbers are simply a concoction that the government manipulates by claiming truly unemployed workers are not actually "participating" in the labor force, and therefore do not count as unemployed.

How about to falsely inform the public about the health of the economy, so they'll keep spending money they don't have and insure Corporate America continues to make exorbitant profits off sale of production to consumers who are spending themselves into bankruptcy?

How about falsely assuring investors so that they'll continue to overinvest in the stock market and overvaluate stocks so that CEOs continue to receive record-breaking, undeserved bonuses for their Enron-type accounting?

How about making Bush's economic management look less criminal than it actually is, to reduce his chances of being impeached?

How about continuing to espouse an economy that's on the verge of collapse, so that Democrats will receive blame for an entirely Republican-engineered economic catastrophe?

I'm sure there are many more "reasons," but I don't have time to list them all.

Since many on the Right are touting the increase in the value of the dollar last week, a view of the long-term trend is worth showing. Below is a copy of 2 Euro vs. Dollar charts from "futuresource.com." (The top chart shows an 8-month period, the bottom chart shows a 2-year period.)

Clearly the long-term trend of the dollar is downward, having declined roughly 8% against the Euro since earlier this year.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.